The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capatilism)

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #1
Art
The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capitalism)

I've moved this from the USSR thread as it doesn't belong there


Originally Posted by sid_galt
"I advise you to look at the cynical and biased nature of your post which has been provided without ANY justification.

Odds are, without the USA, you might have been slaving under Communism. Hate me for saying it but it's true."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean as opposed to slaving under one of the many dictatorships the USA has supported

This list includes only direct intervention of a military nature by the USA in other countries' affairs since world war 2. If you include economic and covert actions the list becomes huge.

Year Country Action Taken


1947 Greece Military Backing
1948 Peru Military Backing
1948 Vietnam Military Backing
1948 Nicaragua Military Backing
1950 Korea Killing Civilians
1950 Puerto Rico Military Action
1954 Vietnam Military Backing
1957 Jordan Military Training
1958 Lebanon Military Action
1959 Haiti Military Action
1961 Cuba Secret Invasion
1962 Vietnam Military Action
1964 North Vietnam Bombing
1964 Panama Military Action
1965 Vietnam Military Action
1965 Thailand Military Aid
1965 Peru Military Aid
1966 Laos Bombing
1967 Vietnam Military Action
1969 Cambodia Secret Bombing
1969 Vietnam Military Action
1970 North Vietnam Bombing
1970 Oman Military Assistance.
1971 Laos Invasion
1971 Vietnam Military Action
1972 North Vietnam Blockade; Bombing
1972 Nicaragua Troops
1973 Cambodia Bombing
1974 Vietnam Trade Embargo
1974 Zaire Military Aid
1975 East Timor Support of Invasion
1975 Morocco Support of Invasion
1976 Indonesia Military Aid
1976 Philippines Military Aid
1977 Pakistan Military Aid
1977 Zaire Military Aid
1977 Indonesia Military Aid
1978 Guatemala Military Aid;
1979 Afghanistan Military Aid
1979 Cambodia Aid to Khmer Rouge
1979 Yemen Military Aid
1980 El Salvador Military Aid
1980 Honduras Troops
1980 Iraq Military Aid
1980 Cambodia Military Aid
1980 South Korea Military Aid;
1981 El Salvador Military Aid
1982 Lebanon Troops
1982 Guatemala Military Aid
1982 Afghanistan Military Aid
1982 Iraq Military
1983 Lebanon Troops;
1983 Nicaragua Blockade; Arming Rebels
1985 Chad Military Aid;
1985 Honduras Military Aid;
1986 Nicaragua Military Aid
1986 Libya Bombing Terrorism To destabilise the country.
1988 Iraq Military Aid
1988 Colombia Military Aid
1988 El Salvador Military Aid
1988 Turkey Military Aid
1989 El Salvador Military Aid
1989 Panama Invasion;
1989 Cambodia Military Aid
1990 El Salvador Military Training
1990 Guatemala Military Aid
1991 Iraq Invasion;
1992 Somalia Invasion .
1992 Angola Military Aid
1993 Iraq Bombing
1994 Haiti Troops;
1994 Colombia Military Aid
1995 Turkey Military Aid
1995 Mexico Military Aid
1997 Rwanda Military Aid
1998 Afghanistan Bombing
1998 Sudan Bombing
1998 Turkey Military Aid
1998 Guatemala Military Aid
1999 Yugoslavia Bombing
1999 Iraq Bombing
1999 Guatemala Military Aid
2000 Israel Military Aid;
2001 Colombia Military Aid
2001 Iraq Sanctions; Bombing
2001 Afghanistan Bombing;
2002 Afghanistan Bombing;
2003 Iraq Invasion

That enough justification for you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
57
0
in fact that list is incomplete,, i can't see any of the terrorist dictatorships of latin america in the 70'. trained in the school of americas and suported by US..


PD: i love this one >>> 1988 Iraq Military Aid :yuck:
 
  • #3
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Wow, not sure how many times ive seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why dont you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion
 
  • #4
740
13
here are the assassination attempts against foreign leaders since WWII:
1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be "put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion
1950s - Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts on his life
1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 - Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life
1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia
1998, 2001-2 - Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia
2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord
2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons
 
  • #5
Art
Burnsys said:
in fact that list is incomplete,, i can't see any of the terrorist dictatorships of latin america in the 70'. trained in the school of americas and suported by US..


PD: i love this one >>> 1988 Iraq Military Aid :yuck:
I didn't include indirect support such as training etc as the list would become too long.

Incidentally the point of this thread is not to criticise the American people but their government's foreign policy which has remained relatively unchanged throughout successive administrations and to try to highlight the differences between the way a lot of Americans view their interventions abroad and the way the rest of the world views them.
 
  • #6
Art
Pengwuino said:
Wow, not sure how many times ive seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why dont you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion
As you are obviously very au fait and knowledable about this information and therefore not one of the ignorant here's a little test for you. Can you provide the details and the reasons behind oh, let's say the first 6 items on this list?
 
  • #7
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And lets see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and theres the assassination attempt on a US president.... oh and theres even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...
 
  • #8
Art
Pengwuino said:
Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And lets see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and theres the assassination attempt on a US president.... oh and theres even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...
The test was to give the details and reasons behind the first 6 items on the list. As you haven't / can't do so I guess that classifies you as one of the ignorant people you referred to.
 
  • #9
23
0
What's your point, Art? What are you claiming?
 
  • #10
Art
Yonoz said:
What's your point, Art? What are you claiming?
Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.
 
  • #11
740
13
Pengwuino said:
Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?
the US had nukes in turkey at the time, pointing straight at the soviet heartland. same with britain. the warsaw pact was created in response to the US creating nato.

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?
the facts are out there if you want to know what they are. there's no reason for this ignorance, unless you just want to be ignorant & misinformed.

And lets see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there
well i wouldn't oppose apprehending terrorists who attack/kill civilians, american or not. i can totally understand why terrorists would want to do such things though, it's no wonder when you look at what the US has done to people in other countries. off the top of my head there's 100000 people liberated in iraq, for example, or millions of starving homeless refugees in afghanistan.
 
  • #12
alexandra
Pengwuino said:
Wow, not sure how many times ive seen that ignorant list in the last few months but it gets rather tiresome. Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. Where is hte list of the UN campaigns? Why dont you list say, a US president's assassination attempt next to its correct year or UN resolution next to its correct years?

Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion
Pengwuino, provide evidence for what you say. "Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread". Well, ok - I don't know the history you refer to. Please enlighten me (with reputable references, please). Oh, and another request: will you please stop making these personal attacks - stop calling people who disagree with you 'ignorant'; this is not the way intelligent arguments are conducted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
alexandra
Art said:
Incidentally the point of this thread is not to criticise the American people but their government's foreign policy which has remained relatively unchanged throughout successive administrations and to try to highlight the differences between the way a lot of Americans view their interventions abroad and the way the rest of the world views them.
Well put, Art - I want to state that this is my intention as well (I've already stated this in other discussions, but it does not hurt to reiterate my position).
 
  • #14
23
0
Art said:
Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.
Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?
 
  • #15
alexandra
Pengwuino said:
Well its rather obvious to anyone with even the smallest historical knowledge such as me as to what many of htese things are. 1950 korea? Korean war eh? Ever heard of it? It was UN war in the first place.

1960, Cuba... a few dozen nuclear missiles are being assembled 70 miles off our coastline... does that ring a bell? Why would you omit such information unless you were trying to decieve someone?

Most of the southeast asian conflicts were the result of a doctrine that resulted in a few thousand nuclear missiles being pointed at us... again... why would you omit such information?

And lets see... oh i guess bombing terrorists that attempt to and succeed in killing americans is a bad thing... guess we're pretty guilty of a horrible crime there

Oh and theres the assassination attempt on a US president.... oh and theres even mroe UN-ordered bombings... my my... yet all this information is omitted from the list. Why on earth would that be? I guess you need to really leave out the facts if you want to turn people against the US...
Pengwuino, please provide your sources of information. How do you KNOW this? And nobody is trying to turn people against 'the US' - what does that mean, in any case? Did anyone say anything about American people? No! Nobody said 'Americans are bad/evil'. We are not arguing about silly things. We are trying to look at the big picture to see what's really happened in the past so that we can understand what's happening now. It is what we do: we try to understand things by being informed and by questioning and not blindly accepting what the powerful want us to believe. That is what thinking people do - and that's all we're trying to do.
 
  • #16
23
0
fourier jr said:
well i wouldn't oppose apprehending terrorists who attack/kill civilians, american or not. i can totally understand why terrorists would want to do such things though, it's no wonder when you look at what the US has done to people in other countries.
You can understand why someone would want to kill civilians, but you cannot understand the causes of the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
 
  • #17
alexandra
Yonoz said:
Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?
Yonoz, I'm answering on my own behalf (not anyone else's - others can speak for themselves).

I will come out with what I am trying to point out here: it is my understanding that capitalism is by its nature destructive. Capitalism (and its representatives - the US administration, the UK admininstration, etc) causes wars, death, suffering, environmental degradation, social dislocation, etc. It deprives humanity of resources that could be better used for our further development.

It is in the name of securing cheap resources (raw materials such as oil) and lucrative contracts that many wars are fought. Very few people benefit from these wars (the very rich do) and many, many ordinary people suffer as a result of them - either by dying or by having their taxes spent on killing people or because of depleted uranium used in the new 'hotshot' weapons that great minds are totally wasting their potential developing.

It makes me furious to think about the brain-power being expended on developing 'better' ways to kill human beings when these minds could be working on important things like solving our environmental problems.

I have nothing against the ordinary people who live in any country whatsoever who do not have the power to make these devastating decisions, though I do wish they would question their social institutions and the prevalent ideology critically so we can get over this disgusting phase of social (dis)organisation that depends on killing and general mayhem and get on with doing worthwhile things. There - please feel free to question me further if I did not make myself clear.
 
  • #18
alexandra
Yonoz said:
You can understand why someone would want to kill civilians, but you cannot understand the causes of the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yonoz, is this a serious question? Tell me, why Iraq? And please, do NOT say 'WMD' or '9/11'. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. So ok, why Iraq?
 
  • #19
Informal Logic
Pengwuino said:
Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread. This list is simply intended to fool the ignorant into thinking the US is somehow bullying the world around. ...Simply more uninformed rhetoric that removes the facts and hopes the reader will draw the incorrect conclusion
Anyone familiar with history who is not ignorant and is not fooled by propaganda can see the truth, which always lies somewhere in between. All powers do good and bad things, and the US is no exception. Without critical views (as allowed by democracy) power would corrupt and there would be no balance or possibility for improvement.
Art said:
Simply that the world including the American homeland would be a more peaceful place if American citizens were to question more deeply the foreign policies of their government and the motivations behind these policies.
And therefore I agree with this conclusion.

Ironically the ability for discussion on these topics is an exercise of democracy that right-wing people seem to want to suppress, or at the minimum seem to over react to, probably because it threatens their neat little perceptions of the world. I believe I speak for several members in saying how tiring it is to keep reading posts that reflect this mentality.
 
  • #20
1,134
9
1947.greek Civil war...Britain sent 40,000 troops to Greece and gave financial aid to the government, which became dependent on Great Britain's military to stay in power. On 21 February 1947 the British announced that they would cease providing aid to Greece and Turkey, and would not continue its support after March 31, 1947, the day of Greek elections. The UK was rebuilding after WW2, and simply needed the man power back home.
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania were channeling Russian weapons/support/aid into greece.
Our government {USA}could see no end to the communist push. Each gain,would serve as a stepping stone from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war{remember greece was blown to bits by the germans}, offered opportunities for further Soviet conquest.
The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence.
 
  • #21
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
alexandra said:
Pengwuino, provide evidence for what you say. "Anyone remotely familiar with history knows the correct justification for most matters listed on this thread". Well, ok - I don't know the history you refer to. Please enlighten me (with reputable references, please). Oh, and another request: will you please stop making these personal attacks - stop calling people who disagree with you 'ignorant'; this is not the way intelligent arguments are conducted.
Are you kidding me? You need a reference as to what hte Korean war was???? Do you think it didnt exist? You dont know what the UN Resolution was for both Iraq wars were???? Or what the Soviet Union was doing for 4 decades??? Its like asking someone for proof that WW2 actually happened or that bananas exist. Also, alexandra, please cool it with your personal attack accusations. You've already shown that when confronted with information, your only recourse is to complain that people are attacking you when all they are doing is giving you factual information.

Also, as to not make yourself look like hypocrits, I believe sources will be necessary for every one of those bombings/military aid/etc. posted originally...
 
  • #22
Art
Yonoz said:
Sounds like a politician's statement. Come on, out with it - what are your claims as to the foreign policies of the US administration and the motives behind them?
In my personal opinion there are many reasons specific to individual interventions but probably the common thread which connects most if not all would be that interventions are resource driven. Thus the subtitle of the thread - The unacceptable face of capitalism.

In theory anybody can rise to the highest office in America but in reality the monetary cost of campaigning is so high that entry is restricted to a very few who end up beholden to the people who finance their campaign. This has lead to America becoming more like a corporation state than a nation state with the president in the role of CEO, his immediate staff, his board of directors and the legislature it's managers.
Like any corporation they want to maximise profits to enrich their shareholders (the American people) and themselves. To do this they need to draw on other countries resources which, to continue the business model, they want to obtain on as favorable terms as possible. Nothing wrong with this so far but here is where it becomes unacceptable. To obtain those favorable terms the USA does not hesitate to use it's military and economic might to undermine and even remove governments they have difficulty in agreeing terms with in order to replace them with governments more inclined to do as they are bid.
To the rest of the world this type of interference in other peoples' sovereignty is repugnant as I'm sure the American people would find it equally repugnant if another country was to do it to them.
How much of this the American people are fully aware of I have no idea which is why I started this thread; to find out.
Do they believe their government's propaganda such as the current publicly stated motivation for the war in Iraq "We want to remove a vicious dictator" , "We want to liberate the Iraqi people" and "We are under threat from WMD" or prior to that "We want to liberate the Kuwaiti people".
Do they know that the war is really about big business and obtaining the resources to fuel it but so long as they maintain their high standard of living do they just not care?
 
  • #23
alexandra
hypatia said:
1947.greek Civil war...Britain sent 40,000 troops to Greece and gave financial aid to the government, which became dependent on Great Britain's military to stay in power. On 21 February 1947 the British announced that they would cease providing aid to Greece and Turkey, and would not continue its support after March 31, 1947, the day of Greek elections. The UK was rebuilding after WW2, and simply needed the man power back home.
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania were channeling Russian weapons/support/aid into greece.
Our government {USA}could see no end to the communist push. Each gain,would serve as a stepping stone from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war{remember greece was blown to bits by the germans}, offered opportunities for further Soviet conquest.
The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence.
And this policy resulted in a bitter civil war because many Greeks actually supported communism:
The Greek Civil War was a war fought between 1942 and 1949 in Greece. On one side was the conservative part of the Greek society and the armed forces of the Greek government, supported at first by Britain and later by the United States. On the other side was the revolutionary part of the Greek society and the forces of the biggest wartime resistance organization (ELAS) against the German occupation, whose leadership was controlled by the Communist Party of Greece.

The Civil War left Greece in ruins and in even greater economic distress than it had been after the end of WWII and the end of the German occupation. The war divided the Greek people for the following four decades. Thousands of Greeks languished in prison for many years. Many thousands more went into exile in Communist countries, or emigrated to Australia Germany, USA and other countries. The polarisation and instability in the 1960s of Greek politics was a direct result from feelings and ideologies lingering from the Civil War.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Civil_War
 
  • #24
alexandra
Pengwuino said:
Are you kidding me? You need a reference as to what hte Korean war was???? Do you think it didnt exist? You dont know what the UN Resolution was for both Iraq wars were???? Or what the Soviet Union was doing for 4 decades??? Its like asking someone for proof that WW2 actually happened or that bananas exist. Also, alexandra, please cool it with your personal attack accusations. You've already shown that when confronted with information, your only recourse is to complain that people are attacking you when all they are doing is giving you factual information.

Also, as to not make yourself look like hypocrits, I believe sources will be necessary for every one of those bombings/military aid/etc. posted originally...
Pengwuino, I am not accusing you of attacking me; I was actually asking that you not do personal attacks in general. But you should back up your arguments. What was the UN Resolution regarding Iraq? Didn't the US administration decide to go to war despite there being no supporting UN resolution? Where can I read what you mean by the UN resolution regarding the attack on Iraq?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
1,134
9
We need to remember after WW2, the cold war began with in months. The Soviet Union was installing communist governments throughout central and eastern Europe, China, Korea and VietNam. In countries that were already war torn.
The USA found the need to say enoughs, enough, when it came to so many dictatorships, funded by USSR.
In the first 6 items mentioned, the USSR is as much in fault as the USA.
 

Related Threads on The USA's foreign Policy (or the unacceptable face of capatilism)

Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
6K
Replies
49
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
Top